Communications Legislation Bill

I move, That the Communications Legislation Bill be now read a second time. In speaking to the second reading of this bill, let me first extend my thanks to the Commerce Committee, which has worked to report this bill back to the House in a short period and, in so doing, has given a full consideration to the public submissions received. I am pleased to see a unanimous report back with only minor alterations, which improve the bill.

I reiterate my comments made at the first reading that the bill is not related to decisions on the broader telecommunications stocktake, which is being considered under a separate Telecommunications Amendment Bill currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee for report back by November 2006.

This Communications Legislation Bill contains a number of more specific but more urgent matters, and has accordingly been dealt with separately. The bill maintains a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and the users of the radio frequency spectrum. The environment will benefit both producers and consumers of goods and services, be they providers of telecommunications services, radio spectrum licensees, customers, viewers, or listeners. A robust, up-to-date communications sector is an essential part of an innovative, growing economy.

Let me reiterate the key objectives of the bill. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act of 2001. These amendments to the Act are simply to prevent the premature expiry of the regulation of 10 particular telecommunications services. Submissions to the select committee were supportive of that and no submissions were received opposing the proposal. Under the present Act, the Commerce Commission can recommend that regulation be extended. Although the commission has initiated an investigation, there remains a risk that the overall process would not be completed by December of this year. In any event, it is of course desirable to maintain a stable regulatory environment, such that the extension of regulation is not left until just prior to expiry, as telecommunications service providers and customers need as much certainty as is practicable. The bill therefore extends the regulation on 10 services until 2008.

Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act of 1989. The main amendments to the Radiocommunications Act concern, firstly, criteria for certification of licences; secondly, the aggregation of consecutive management rights; and, thirdly, the extension of applicability of existing arbitration procedures. On the first point, the certification of licences, the provisions of the bill are designed to improve and clarify the requirements for the certification of licences. The bill establishes a process whereby inappropriate receivers are not to be taken into account in the certification of those new licences. Submissions to the bill were supportive of this approach. Indeed, some sought an even wider approach. A further issue raised in submissions was specifically in regard to receivers and imported vehicles designed for use in Japan, and potential prohibition of such receivers. I note that the select committee commentary states that this can be better approached as a consumer information issue. The committee makes a suggestion on how this could be achieved—I concur with this viewpoint.

Secondly, in relation to aggregation of management rights in time, the present Radiocommunications Act provides for management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years. This gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. The bill allows in limited circumstances the aggregation in time of an existing management right and a successive right. This will facilitate an efficient transition from one right to the next and give improved certainty and efficiency in the radiocommunications sector. Those rights created from 1990 onwards reach their 20-year expiry date from 2010 onwards.

Thirdly, in relation to arbitration, the bill includes provisions to allow radio licensees to resolve issues concerning interference through arbitration, in a similar manner to the existing provisions for commercially allocated spectrum licences. This provision recognises that radio licences are seldom revoked and that radio licensees have made investments in equipment, often over many years. It is appropriate that they should be able to choose to participate in arbitration rather than be simply subject to decisions by the Ministry of Economic Development.

All of the bill’s provisions are intended to maintain and enhance the efficient operation of the regime prescribed in the Act. Due to its nature, the communications sector is subject to rapid changes in technologies, in services, and in commercial strategies. It is also characterised by long-term investment in physical infrastructure assets. These characteristics require a regulatory environment that allows a fair return to those who own those assets, but one that is also able to keep pace with the rapid changes in technology by allowing efficient entry into markets for those services.

This bill is an important step in New Zealand’s keeping its regulatory environment up to date. The issues are narrowly focused and they need to be dealt with now. Wider legislative changes have been proposed in order to progress decisions from the telecommunications stocktake, but those provisions are more detailed and of a more strategic nature and will benefit from a fulsome discussion in the select committee in due course.

In conclusion, the Communications Legislation Bill is critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. It addresses key issues of telecommunications and radiocommunications, both of which are important in the information age and in continuing to grow an innovative economy. The main principles of the bill are designed, firstly, to prevent the unplanned expiry of regulation on a narrow range of communication services, and, secondly, to provide the legal certainty to allow the full use of the radio spectrum. I commend the bill to the House.

This so-called technical bill actually reveals some major problems with regard to the Labour Government’s lack of progress in the telecommunications and energy sectors, and in other infrastructure areas. The reason for the lack of progress in all those areas is the lack of a final vision for those sectors. The various Labour Ministers in those portfolios have no idea of where they want to take those sectors to. We find they put up frameworks, pass legislation, set up commissions, and sack commissioners. We end up with more consultation and more ad hoc decisions, U-turns, and delays.

That last point is particularly demonstrated in Part 1 of this relatively short bill. The bill’s full name is the Communications Legislation Bill, and it has two main parts. The first part amends the Telecommunications Act of 2001. I ask members to let me share some of the faults in that legislation with the public. At the time of the passage of the Telecommunications Act 2001, which is nearly 5 long years ago, 13 telecommunications services were identified as designated services. The telecommunications companies needed to apply to the Commerce Commission for a determination on the terms of and process for access to those specified services. Five years ago those 13 designated services were set up, obviously with the expectation that all the issues relating to them would be resolved at the end of 5 years. Part 1 is needed because an extension of 2 years is required for 10 out of the 13 services. I do not think that lack of progress deserves even a D grade.

Five years ago the Minister of Communications—we have had many Ministers, but at that time it was the Hon Paul Swain—claimed that with the Telecommunications Act the Labour Government had set up a framework for the telecommunications sector to move forward in an orderly manner. I do not think that anybody, but particularly the shareholders in Telecom who lost billions of dollars from the worth of their shares, would believe that that framework is assisting the sector to move forward in an orderly manner. Five years ago when the legislation was set up, 13 services were identified as designated services and were regulated. Five years later, we are being asked to extend the period for a further 2 years.

But 5 years ago the Labour Government also appointed a Telecommunications Commissioner, Mr Douglas Webb, who was charged with addressing the problem of the lack of uptake of broadband. In his draft report he actually recommended unbundling. Then he made a U-turn, which the Government accepted in 2003. But earlier this year the Government did another U-turn and decided to declare unbundling as a major plank in its 2006 Budget announcement. Incompetence in the handling of that issue led to the leaking of that information, and suddenly the whole unbundling decision had to be announced in a hurry and billions of dollars were wiped off the value of Telecom shares. One can hardly say that that was done in an orderly manner so as to introduce certainty into the sector, or that, as the Minister just stood up and claimed, the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the subsequent legislation lead business to have confidence in being innovative, to take our telecommunications sector forward.

I also would like to give a wee warning to the Telecommunications Commissioner. He should be careful about the wishes of his political masters, because we have just learnt this afternoon that the electricity commissioner has been sacked. Why? Because when the Labour Government does not know where it wants the telecommunications sector or the energy sector to go, it blames the commissioners for not doing their job. I think the commissioners are probably following the legislation.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not normally interrupt a member’s speech, but this is an important matter and the Standing Orders do provide for the clarification of facts. In this case it has been made clear by the Minister that the electricity commissioner has not been sacked; he is simply not being reappointed at the end of his standard 3-year term.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is opportunity under Standing Order 106, “Misrepresentation”, to do that at the end of a speech.

I am surprised at the defensiveness of the Minister. Surely he should be experienced enough to know that that was not even a proper point of order. We are engaged in a very serious debate on a very important sector.

As I say, I think the Telecommunications Commissioner should take note. That is very bad for the sector. The commissioners in the telecommunications and energy sectors have now learnt that they need to watch their political masters very carefully, because those masters do not know the final vision for the sectors, so, in the meantime, anybody who cannot deliver the answers may get the blame. In effect, the lack of vision for the telecommunications sector is causing all the delay, and the fact that we are standing here and debating this bill proves my point that if nobody knows the destination, then there will be delay and uncertainty.

National will cooperate with the Government on this legislation, because we do not want to punish or penalise business just because the Labour Government has no answers. We will agree to an extension of 2 years, but we are not very sure whether, within those 2 years, we will really see progress.

I ask members to let me confirm the dilemma that now faces business with regard to the lack of direction and the tolerance of inefficiency in the telecommunications sector. Only one submission was made on Part 1 of the bill, and it was from TelstraClear. The company supported the extension provided for in Part 1 for 2 years, but stated, in the reasons why it supported it, that it was worth noting: “The experience of previous Commission Investigations and Determinations suggests that the Commission’s proposed timetable may slip, and that any such slippage may be significant.” In other words, our businesses have learnt to live with delay. I look forward to further debate during the Committee stage about the delay and uncertainty that are being created in the telecommunications sector.

Part 2 is about changes to the Radiocommunications Act, and I want to raise two points and then debate those further in the Committee stage. One is that many submitters are getting very nervous because in the bill the Government is changing the way that, in future, radio licences may be issued. Under the current legislation, that has to be done by competitive tendering or auction. The bill introduces the term “by any other means”. So, once again, the industry and the users are becoming very nervous about interference and about having to watch every move of their political masters.

The other issue we will explore in detail is a submission by the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand. That is a non-profit organisation, and its membership includes local government authorities and companies connected with transport, communications, forestry, farming, taxis, consultancy work, and tourism. It complained that it was not included in the consultation on the bill, and we want to explore that lack of consultation further in the Committee stage.

I am pleased to stand to talk to the second reading of the Communications Legislation Bill. As witnessed by the fact that the report back was unanimous, it is obvious that National supports this bill. National, of course, supports a strong framework for the communications sector—there is no doubt about that—and if the Government’s intention is to achieve that, then that is good. I have to say, though, that everything the Government has done to date would make one doubt that it is totally committed to that aim.

My colleague Pansy Wong has already quoted Paul Swain when he spoke to the Telecommunications Bill in 2001. Let us face it, although this is the Communications Legislation Bill, we are all very mindful that before the Finance and Expenditure Committee now is the Telecommunications Amendment Bill that dominates a lot of this area, simply because of the way Telecom has conducted its business. That bill is sitting there in the background—or the foreground.

But the reason why I say National doubts very much the commitment and the determination of the Government to make sure that the communications environment is robust and provides certainty and clarity is that, frankly, a range of Ministers in this area have all said the same thing, from 2001 to the present, 5 years later. But if I asked ordinary New Zealanders out there whether they thought we were moving quickly and in the right way in this whole communications area, I guarantee people would throw up their hands in horror. I do not think there is anything that this Government has done to give anybody any confidence that it knows what it is doing. As my colleague said, there seems to be a road map but there is no certainty as to where that road is going.

In speaking to the Telecommunications Bill in 2001, Paul Swain said: “For the first time we have established a framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” Gosh! If what we have seen in the last 5 years could be called “orderly”, then I would hate to see what chaos means! Quite frankly, it has looked totally chaotic. The current Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, made a speech today that resembled what he said on the first reading of the bill: “This bill contains a number of urgent technical matters that need not, and should not, await that wider review process.” We are still waiting.

The Communications Legislation Bill amends both the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunications Act. It will contribute to improving the efficient operation of the communications sector as part of the economic transformation of New Zealand society. Transformation brings to mind a perspective that we all know where we are going, that the Government is leading us in the right direction, that we do not have to put up with more reviews, more papers, more this, more that—things we have seen over the past 5 years—and that the transformation it is talking about is clearly visible to all of us. I have to say it is not. It is not visible to those out there who are looking to make the long-term investment that the Minister speaks about. It is not visible to those who are users of the services that flow from both telecommunications and the radio spectrum. It is not visible at all, and really, when the Minister gets to his feet and blandly reads his speech, I say to him that there is no vision, and there is no excitement.

💬 Pansy Wong: At least there’s no leaking.

At least there is no leaking. Well, I think we have had the biggest leak we would ever want to see in the unbundling decision. It took all the gloss from the poor old Minister’s—what would members call it—coup d’état. He was going to announce to the world the unbundling decision and, blow me down, some messenger riding his bike, with his helmet on, somehow got those papers and did not deal with them properly. Did we ever know what happened to that guy? Is that the way the Prime Minister’s or the Minister’s office—

💬 Pansy Wong: No security check.

There was no security check—there you go. And this Minister has the gall to stand up and say that the Government is looking to get certainty, to confirm confidence, and to give confidence to long-term investors—and that is what has carried on in these last 5 years.

Now that the Commerce Committee has done its job and given the tick to this bill, National also gives it a tick. Let us hope that we see it move quickly and pass into law so we do not put at risk any of the specified services it covers, in terms of telecommunications and also spectrum management rights. This whole area is critical to transforming the New Zealand economy, and it has taken 5 years of bumbling. Labour set in place a process, and appointed a commissioner who says one thing and then says another thing. The Government then says it does not like what he says anyway, and is going to do something else. Honestly , it is so chaotic that people would weep. It looks like we are in a Third World country. The Minister has to get moving—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I give just a quick reminder to the member that she is referring to the Telecommunications Amendment Bill that is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and not the one that the Commerce Committee has just reported.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

That was a pathetic point of order. Everybody out there knows that all of these things are linked. Sure, this bill deals with some specific services and the radio spectrum, but the reality is that if people are talking about transforming the economy, that bill comes into the picture as well. I have already said that the Telecommunications Amendment Bill is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We know all that, but the reality is that members cannot seriously stand and talk about transforming the New Zealand economy and have such a mishmash of things that it gives nobody—especially those waiting to invest their money—any confidence that this Minister, and indeed this Government, know what they are doing in this area.

I want to make a comment about something my colleague raised in the first reading of the bill. Maurice Williamson said this is a fast-moving area. He is a real technohead, and he knows a lot about this area. He flagged with us that this is not an area where members can sit on their laurels and think that once the legislation has been passed everything is OK. This is an area of fast-moving technologies. The Minister may know—he probably considers himself an expert in this area—but do we really know what is ahead of us in terms of the technology? Maurice has pointed out that we need to keep our eye on the ball in this area, that we have to make sure the framework we develop is adequate and appropriate, and that, if needs be, we are in a position to update and strengthen it, if that will see the transformation of our economy. If that is what the Minister is really aiming for, National supports that. But if he is aiming for another 5 years of mishmash and chaos, we cannot support that.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the second reading debate of the Communications Legislation Bill. I will take only a very brief call.

I must say at the outset that New Zealand First did not have a member on the Commerce Committee, so we were not able to follow up with the various submitters any aspects of the bill. We note that the bill was basically intended to improve the regulation of the communications sector. The select committee report for this particular bill recommends that the bill is passed, and it contains only very minor amendments. There were no minority views written, so obviously most parties were in agreement with the bill. It was interesting to see, too, that there was very little media interest in the bill. To follow that up, there were only five submitters on the bill.

During the first reading of this bill, the Hon Brian Donnelly commended the Hon Maurice Williamson for his knowledge of the physics lying behind this bill. He said he had a lot of confidence in the honourable member. As we all know, Maurice Williamson lives and breathes this type of technology, which is an area that is rapidly developing. Members were told the bill is really critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. New Zealand First has been supportive of this bill. We are, however, quite concerned about suggestions we have received that, as it stands, the bill poses serious threats to the wireless delivery of supplementary emergency, taxi, and control—and here we are talking about sewerage, irrigation, and dam control—services.

New Zealand First seeks the assurance of the Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, that the enactment of this bill will not lead to the confiscation of allocated frequencies, or be a cause of congestion and interference in some areas of the spectrum, or provide uncertainty in the future management of some frequencies. We also seek some assurance that current licensees who might be affected by the proposed changes have been consulted and have also had their concerns taken into account. Without such assurances, New Zealand First would have to consider proposing amendments to the bill during the Committee stage that would address those particular matters.

We are looking forward to further debate and discussion on this bill in the Committee stage. At this stage, we are supporting the legislation in the second reading.

Tēnā koutou te Whare. I rise to take a short call on the Communications Legislation Bill.

As a member of the Commerce Committee, the discussion took me into areas I had never been in before, but there was one area that I did understand particularly, and it was raised in the speech of the previous speaker, Barbara Stewart. It was to do with band expanders. One thing I did understand was the nature of a band expander, having once upon a time bought a second-hand Japanese car and discovered that I could not get National Radio on the radio. I then went to find out how I could remedy this problem, because the car clearly had a capable radio in it, but I did not know why I could not pick up some of my favourite stations. I could not hear Parliament, for example. So I went to a place that installs car radios and the people said: “Madam, you need a band expander.” I asked what that was, and they said it was a device that increased the capacity of a radio to access different radio stations and receive a wider range of frequencies, and therefore increased the coverage of one’s car radio. I said that was fine and to put in one of those.

What happened thereafter, I found really interesting. In the course of the discussion in the select committee, it became clear there were some concerns about the wording of the legislation and whether the definition of “interference” was going to make life difficult for people with cars that had band expanders. I am not the only person in New Zealand who has ever bought a second-hand Japanese import. It became important to clarify, as reported back by the Commerce Committee, that interference did not include any effect on the reception of radio communications caused by the use of inappropriate receivers. In other words, the key point was that band expanders tend to affect only the reception in one’s own car and not the reception in other cars. So it is not as if it creates a difficulty for anybody else in receiving a signal from a given frequency.

So it was clear that the law needed to be clarified, in the wake of a court case, to ensure that the efficient allocation of frequencies was not prevented by the fact that a band expander can cause interference, because generally the interference is very localised—to one’s own car. But the point that my colleague Barbara Stewart raised was that there was some anxiety about whether the existence of band expanders could interfere with the reception of particular kinds of transmissions; I think she mentioned emergency frequencies and things of that sort.

That issue having been covered in some detail in the select committee, it was clear that there was not a significant risk of this at all, largely because people like myself with band expanders in a car would normally listen to stations with good reception in their area. If they do change stations, they are more likely to change to the wider coverage of an AM service, which is not affected by a band expander. So, in the view of the committee, the issue would not really arise in practice. In any event, a band expander does not affect the reception of all FM stations available in an area. So it is unlikely that during an emergency or something of that kind, like a civil emergency, an individual would be unable to tune to a station with the required emergency information.

Although the Radio Broadcasters Association suggested that band expanders should be done away with altogether, it would seem to be a very draconian and very heavy-handed mechanism, if we were to do that. In the end, whether one has a radio with a band expander in one’s car is a consumer choice issue. That is something the Commerce Committee decided was best left at that point.

We discussed further another point that my colleague the previous speaker raised. We discussed the extent of consultation with interested parties. Certainly, we had some parties back more than once in order to ensure we had addressed their concerns, and had allayed any fears about whether there was a danger of usurping property rights, or anything of that kind, caught up inadvertently in this bill. The bill was unanimously supported by the Commerce Committee, because we felt that none of those concerns—which we did address with considerable vigour—really warranted the anxiety with which they had been portrayed.

I commend this bill to the Committee stage.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēna tātou te Whare. We have before us another urgent bill, another omnibus bill. This one is to amend the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radio Communications Act 1989. It is a matter of urgency, apparently, because of the need to sort things out before the registration of telecommunications services expires at the end of the year. Yet despite the pressure of time, it seems, clearly, that consultation was not a priority for the Government. This is an urgent matter, yet only five submissions to the Commerce Committee were received. This is supposed to be an urgent matter, yet the Radio Frequency Users Association of New Zealand told the committee that it was not even consulted in the drafting of the bill. This is supposed to be an urgent matter, but the Government neglected to consult the group, whose members collectively hold more radio licences than any other group in the country.

This oversight—this slip-up in consultation—seems uncannily like that which has occurred in another matter before the House, whereby a bill supposedly representing the interests of Te Arawa iwi and hapū seems not to have taken full regard of the interests of Ngāti Mākino, Ngāti Rangitihi, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, Waitaha, certain Ngāti Whakaue hapū, and, most recently, Ngāti Rangiteaorere. The Government seems quick to demand that Māori have a mandate for their decisions—which the Government then promptly ignores—but it is clear in this piece of legislation, as in others, that the Government does not feel an urgency to get one itself.

The Communications Legislation Bill is supposed to make it easier for competitors to get into the game and to make things cheaper for customs, but at the first reading we noted that the bill regulates everything except price, which is quite absurd. One does not have to be a communications expert to realise how the big boys will react. They will say: “Sure, there’s no problem about us putting in place your regulated services, but for those of you who want to compete against us, here’s the cost of that service, and we hope you choke on it.” The Radio Frequency Users Association said that rushing this bill through without proper consultation would raise questions about the quality of the decisions and throw into doubt the Government’s commitment to making the best use of industry expertise.

Another key issue for the Māori Party is whether legislative change should be piecemeal, making small or frequent changes, or whether it should be less frequent and more substantial—whether we should leave the small stuff and go for a level playing field for everyone. For example, the Radio Frequency Users Association suggested we amend the provisions for mobile frequencies, as well. The Government acknowledged that point but left such provisions out of the bill, meaning that the issue will still have to be dealt with later.

Another issue is the concern of TelstraClear about the allocation of radio licences by methods other than competitive tender or auction. Whatever the final process, it is important that the industry can see that the process will be transparent.

I note, though, that the Government is right to keep aside spectrum and licences for purposes other than commercial profit, and we support the right for licensing to be held for allocation to Māori and community purposes.

One has only to walk down the street these days to know that the world of telecommunications, and communications generally, has moved a long way since the 1970s and 1980s, when women like Naida Pou, Tītewhai Harawira, and a host of other bolshie Māori women upset their bosses by greeting people with the simple phrase “Kia ora” whenever people rang in to make toll calls. I take this opportunity to honour Naida and Co. for continuing to welcome people in Māori when all the world seemed to be going bananas about it. Her supervisors of the day pulled her off the toll board, but they eventually had to give her back her job after public pressure forced them into the 20th century. The furore over those two words went so far as to be referred to the Prime Minister of the day, the late Rob Muldoon, who said: “I’ve been overseas deciding the economic development of the country and while I’ve been away some girl wants to say ‘Kia ora’. As far as I’m concerned she can say ‘Kia ora’, just so long as she doesn’t say ‘gidday blue’.” In an interview later, Naida said: “For me, Kia ora is a salutation that’s indigenous to this country, it’s a Tangata Whenua right. Our reo is a Taonga because of all it captures. It’s not just reo, it’s a dimension which is expressed in tone. Tone is part of our connectedness to universe energies.”

So change happens, and we are generally supportive of the amendments and clarifications behind the Communications Legislation Bill. But in this debate we also need to mention that Māori have an issue with lumping all of the spectrum rights together. In June 1990 the New Zealand Māori Council lodged Wai150, seeking a ruling that Māori had a claim to radio frequencies and that in the absence of an agreement with Māori, the sale of frequency management licences would breach the Treaty and be prejudicial to the interests of Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal report noted: “The spectrum is a taonga to be shared by the tribes and by all mankind. Neither of the Treaty partners can have monopoly rights to this resource.”

The Māori Party wishes to draw a parallel with the current Treaty breach, which was created by the Crown introducing a brand new concept whereby it assumed total ownership of the water stratum of Te Arawa’s lakes, including the airspace, supposedly on behalf of all New Zealanders, and simply took what it wanted through the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Here, in the Communications Legislation Bill, we see the Crown trying to assume ownership of the spectrum, although the tribunal has already ruled that neither Treaty partner shall have a monopoly on that resource. The Wai150 ruling also stated: “Tribal rangatiratanga gives Māori a greater right of access to the newly discovered spectrum. In any scheme of spectrum management it has rights greater than the general public, and especially when it is being used for the protection of the taonga …”. In the development of new spectrums Māori must not be shut out by commercial interests or by the other Treaty partner.

The Māori Party says “Kia ora” to the telecommunications sector. We do not want Māori to have to wait in line behind “Gidday, Blue”, “Yankee Doodle Dandy”, or any other bugger, for that matter. We do not want to be put on hold, on call waiting, or to be hanging on to a busy line. The Māori Party is pleased to hear that there will be consultation before any regulations are made on allocation, and on that basis we support the second reading of this bill. We look forward to Māori being included in that loop, so as to ensure that we stay involved in the nation’s transition to having a world-class telecommunications system. It is about rangatiratanga—our right to be part of the effective and efficient operation of the telecommunications sector, our right to be key players in the communications industry, and our right, as Manhattan Transfer so sweetly puts it, to hear the words: “Operator, information. Give me freedom on the line.” Kia ora tātou.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to indicate our support for the Communications Legislation Bill. It is very important to have a proper regulatory framework around access, and to avoid interference. Maryan Street talked about the problem of interference with band expanders, and that sort of thing. From the listeners’ point of view, there are two things they want: firstly, to have no interference, so that they are able to hear their radio stations clearly; and, secondly, to be able to hear all the types of stations they want to hear.

There is a huge range of stations now. In Auckland it is very hard to keep track of them as they rise and fall, and change names, and to find out what their little niches are. As the preceding speaker, Hone Harawira, has indicated, there is a very dynamic Māori radio sector that requires access at an appropriate price. There is another category I am very interested in. When I was living in Wellington in the early 1980s, the Wellington Latin America Committee was organising a Wellington Access Radio programme every couple of weeks. That was a quite a challenge, but quite an experience at the same time. The Access Radio network, which has now expanded to many cities, has been very dynamic, and Wellington Access Radio was the founder of that trend.

Those stations—and I think this is the same with the iwi stations—have made their waves, got their audiences, and developed their skills, with very little recompense. They are not well-heeled stations, so it is important to have a radio network system that allows all of those community organisations—iwi and non-iwi—to have ready access to frequencies, rather than to be shut out because they are too weak, and not to have a totally commercial mode whereby community stations are competing with the big commercial stations and just cannot get their foot in the door. We have preserved that access for many years. As Hone Harawira said, there is a guarantee from the Government that there will be consultations over the distribution of frequencies and over regulations. The Green Party certainly supports those consultations.

We support this bill. Thank you.

I acknowledge my colleague Hone Harawira, who certainly has experience in radio and television, and has something to add to this debate. I listened to him with interest, and I appreciate his contribution. We in the National Party, of course, also support the Communications Legislation Bill, because we believe it addresses technical issues to do with communications legislation that need addressing. As we are a party of principle and a party that enters into rational debate and quite clearly makes sensible decisions, we can see the value of this legislation, and we will absolutely support it.

The bill’s amendments address issues that could otherwise cause disruption to the effective regulation of communications—and we would not want to see that. We know that the Minister has enough problems on his plate without having to deal with serious disruptions in communications. I know that Minister Cunliffe is very busy juggling balls between, on the one hand, what he is trying to achieve in changing the country and making a difference in a way that he thinks is for the better and, on the other hand, having to deal with wayward colleagues such as Taito Phillip Field. That cannot be easy, and the National Party would not like to see a disruption in effective communications add to the Minister’s woes. I do not want to see Minister Cunliffe weeping in the corridors. We do not want to add to his woes, so we will certainly support this bill.

The two main Parts will be divided into separate bills at the Committee stage, and we will hear more about that in the next stage of the debate. First of all, Part 1 will amend the Telecommunications Act 2001 by extending by 2 years—that is, roughly, to December 2008, so it will be a little more than 2 years—the regulation of 10 of the 13 telecommunications services that were originally regulated under that Act way back then. We see the extension to 2008 as being a reasonably smart move.

Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989 by updating the management of the radio spectrum. Radio spectrum management rights are for 20 years, and the bill allows for the aggregation of rights, to simplify the management process. In addition, adverse impacts on inappropriate receivers—such as band expanders used in imported Japanese cars—are not to be considered when distributing radio spectrum, as this could limit the full utilisation of the available spectrum. The bill also introduces an option of arbitration in resolving disputes between radio broadcasters. The National Party supports all the aspects addressed in the second part of the bill and can understand the reasons for them.

Under the Telecommunications Act 2001, telecommunications companies can apply to the Commerce Commission if they want a determination on the terms and the price of access to specified services. Thirteen services were identified and 10 remain under consideration. It is difficult to believe that we have made progress on only three of those services. However, there is an extension of the time frame now. We deem that necessary, and that is why we support this bill.

Speaking of the Telecommunications Act 2001, I say that way back in 2001 the then Minister of Communications, Paul Swain—before he saw the writing on the wall for the Labour Government and retired from his ministerial position—stated: “… for the first time we have established a framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” On the key issue of increasing New Zealand’s broadband uptake, the Telecommunications Commissioner, Douglas Webb, began his investigation into unbundling in December 2002. Almost a year later, in September 2003, Webb released his draft recommendation, in which he recommended quite clearly that Telecom should be unbundled. But then, in his final report of December 2003, he then reversed that decision and recommended that only bitstream access be unbundled.

That was an intriguing time for those watching the telecommunications industry—that a report from an independent commissioner should state in September 2003 that telecommunications should be unbundled, and then his final report, issued just a few months later, should state that there should not be total unbundling and recommend looking at the unbundling of bitstream access only. The Government accepted that report in May 2004, having sat on it for 9 months. It hurriedly announced its decision on unbundling in May 2006. So it took Labour members 2 years. They accepted the report in May 2004 and, no doubt, formed a committee and hired some consultants. I do not know what they paid those consultants.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Perhaps a single consultant.

Perhaps it was a single consultant—a single, silver-tongued consultant worth $8 million. I do not know. The Minister might be able to confirm how many consultants were employed in that period from May 2004 to May 2006. I calculate just quickly on my fingers that that is 2 years. The Government most definitely formed a committee, possibly employed consultants for that period, and came up with the decision that it would unbundle in May 2006.

Of course, this brings into question the role of the Telecommunications Commissioner, the Government’s commitment to the process, and the original time line. I say those three things quite sensibly. First of all, the Government has brought into question the role of the Telecommunications Commissioner, because, effectively, it went against his advice after having employed him. Secondly, the Government’s commitment to the process is brought into question, because it sat on the information for some time after receiving it, and then went down a different path than what was recommended. And, of course, there were changes and tweaks during that period.

Thirdly, it brings into question the original time line. How could the Government ask something as important as what the future of telecommunications could be, receive an initial report in May 2004, and then take 2 years—until May 2006; nearly a complete parliamentary term—to report back to this Parliament and to the nation on what it would do? It is quite an appalling approach in terms of the original time line. However, National does support the bill.

The Commerce Commission, interestingly enough, announced that it would begin investigations into the mobile phone market and, in particular, into the lack of new market entrants. A number of people are saying that there are really only two major players, Vodafone and Telecom, in the mobile phone market. Sure, one can argue that there are other players, but essentially there are two major players, a lack of new entrants, and, therefore, a lack of competition. This could lead to additional Government regulation.

Clark told Newstalk ZB on 9 May—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name. See Speakers’ Rulings 26/6 and 26/7.

Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, told Newstalk ZB on 9 May that the rules of the game had to change in the mobile phone market—and members might be shocked to hear that that is my wedding anniversary; she chose my wedding anniversary to announce that. On my wedding anniversary, Telecom stock lost $240 million in value. Was that a gift from the Prime Minister to me on my wedding anniversary? I do not know. Thankfully, I do not own Telecom shares, because I would not have been able to pay for that anniversary dinner.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What did you get for your wedding anniversary?

The Minister David Cunliffe might chip, but he also spoke out and had an effect on the sharemarket. I hope he has learnt his lesson about that.

New Zealand really has an extremely cumbersome system. Helen Clark’s comment was that we need to cut right through that. Her Government set up this cumbersome system, and I think we should recognise that. Telecom did lose share value after the statements made by both the Minister of Communications and the Prime Minister, and we should be very careful and cognisant of what comments we make publicly, in this House, and, of course, privately. I counsel the Minister in that regard.

National does support this bill. It addresses technical issues to do with communications legislation. We will support it and we look forward to the Committee stage debate, when we can go into more detail. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for sharing the details of his family life with us. I am very pleased he could enjoy his wedding anniversary. I trust he was not giving us a little lecture on family values at the same time, because it seems that a number of National Party people celebrate a number of wedding anniversaries. Nevertheless, we are talking about the Communications Legislation Bill. The bill is not dealing with communications between individuals and their families; it is actually dealing, as Maryan Street informed us, with radio licences.

This is an interesting bill. Let us get back to what it is about. The bill is intended to improve the regulation of the communications sector. As the introduction states: “Part 1 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 to extend the period of regulation for 10 specified telecommunications services to December 2008, allowing time for a Commerce Commission review to be completed. Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989 to clarify and update the radio spectrum management regime.” So this is all about radio licences. It is about radio regimes. As Maryan Street has informed us, it is about frequencies. It is actually quite a technical bill. It is a reasonably small but quite technical bill about communications legislation. It has come under the guidance of the Minister David Cunliffe, and we thank him for the work he has done on it. As has been mentioned, he picked up from the work done by the previous Minister, Paul Swain, who was also a very able Minister.

As people have said, this matter went out for wide consultation. I was quite surprised that one of the previous speakers in this debate said there was no consultation. I noticed he was not a member of the Commerce Committee, but that he was actually quoting from a submission to the committee. I remind members of the public that New Zealand is particularly good in its consultation processes. I was not a member of the select committee myself, but I assume the bill had the usual form of consultation. It went out for public submissions, no doubt being advertised in the major newspapers as bills normally are.

The committee received only five submissions, but it is the responsibility of the people who are interested in the bill to make submissions. I note that the committee heard three of those five submissions, and it gave a comprehensive report. The committee made some changes to the bill, but not a huge number—in fact, I can see only one or two. One was to do with Ministers being satisfied that there was optimum utilisation of a radio frequency system. The other was about transitional rights of licence holders and what happens in terms of conditions lapsing if public funding ceases, and so on. So although the committee made some minor changes, I understand that generally it was unanimous in its support of the bill.

I see that the bill was referred to the committee in May 2006, so I do not quite understand the comments made by the previous speaker. I wonder whether he got a little confused about the years. The Minister may be able to enlighten me as to whether there was a previous bill, because I do not understand why the previous speaker was talking about May 2004. I think he was a little bit confused, because according to the report this Communications Legislation Bill was referred to the committee in May 2006. The closing date for submissions was June, so there was about a 6-week period for submissions to be received, and they were heard. I note also that the Ministry for Economic Development gave advice to the committee.

The committee has made reference to the definition of “interference” in clause7. I come cold to this bill, but it does seem that there was a need to define the word “interference”. I will share that definition with the House. Subclause (4) states: “Section 2(1) is amended by repealing the definition of interference and substituting the following definition: Interference (a) means the effective radio waves owing to 1 or more emissions, radiations, or inductions, or any combination of 1 or more of those things, on the reception of radiocommunications; but (b) does not include any effect on the reception of radiocommunications by inappropriate receivers.”

I think Maryan Street, who was a member of the committee, did go to great lengths in her speech to explain what all that was about, why that definition was changed, what all the implications are around the term “interference”, and why that was important. As the report states: “Clause 7 amends the definition of “interference” In the Radiocommunications Act to clarify that it does not include any effect on the reception of radiocommunications caused by the use of inappropriate receivers.”

To some extent I am not quite sure what this means. To me, interference on the radio is a kind of static. Usually in our offices, if we hold on to the aerial we stop getting that static. It seems that if a human being hangs on to the aerial for long enough, one does not get that interference. I admit to the House I am not really au fait with what the select committee has done, but I trust that good advice was given to it and no doubt the new definition is much better.

The report states: “We recommend amending the bill so that the Minister can recommend that a receiver be declared inappropriate only if satisfied that the type of receiver concerned might compromise the best use of the radio frequency spectrum. This will make clear the purpose of declaring a receiver inappropriate.” I am getting a nod from the Minister, who says he completely understands what his responsibilities are in this regard. I am glad he does, and I am pleased we have a competent Minister in this area. He is a Minister who is fully cognisant not only of the contents of the bill but also of his responsibilities under it. We look forward to the Committee stage of the bill.

I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner break.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The question has to be put on the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Opposition has suggested that the House rise because it has made such good progress. The member is seeking leave for that. Is there any objection? If members do not want to give leave I will put the question.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.